| It's drivel because the individual sentences of the 'theory' are just .. meaningless. Here's an absolutely trivial exercise to demonstrate it: let's find a paper he wrote and see if it makes any sense. (Turns out these are hard to find, because most of his work is apparently creating websites about how great he is.) Take a random paper I found: http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0006v1.pdf "It
conceives subatomic particles to be Turing wave patterns that self-organize within a subquantum
medium that functions as an open reaction-diffusion system." This is meaningless. But maybe if I read on I'll find out that it's just extremely poorly written? "Under the right conditions, the concentrations of the
variable reactants of these reaction systems spontaneously self-organize into stationary reactiondiffusion
wave patterns called Turing patterns, so named in recognition of Alan Turing who in
1952 was the first to point out their importance for biological morphogenesis. " Also meaningless. "In a three-dimensional volume we would
expect that a supercritical Brusselator reaction-diffusion system would give rise to a periodic
structure having a Gaussian central core surrounded by a pattern of concentric spherical shells of
declining amplitude" Gibberish. "Etherons in this reaction system play a morphogenetic role similar to Turing's morphogens." Gibberish Etc. This paper says nothing meaningful. It's not precise enough to be parsed into predictions about the universe. He'll tell you that it predicts stuff, but the words and equations don't. They don't say anything that can be unambiguously mapped to predictions, equations, or statements of any sort. I could throw all these words - etherons, Brusselators, Turing waves, etc into a random text generator, and the result would be as meaningful as his actual writing. That or, it has content but it's so obfuscated under meaningless jargon with no meaningful explanations, no simple sentences, no ability to explain a single point lucidly, that it effectively says nothing. Either way, there is no reason to take it seriously if it can't formulate meaningful and communicative English sentences. Also, it's extremely weird to accuse me of depending on a government to think for me when I've generated like a dozen carefully argued rational thoughts here, including all sorts of scientific explanation. You're just.. ignoring them, and attacking me. You have to stop that. |
Seriously, concede that you don't understand the theory and therefore can't make certain judgements (because you arguably can't think for yourself), or STFU. Why is this is so complicated?
Do you have a unified field theory? No? Then by definition you literally don't understand how the universe works. Ironically, you should use that fact to accept why you might be wrong about Subquantum Kinetics.